Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@zitpig You're not paying for the online infrastructure. Nearly all of their games use a P2P network (I can't think of any games that have dedicated servers at least). You're paying for the 'free' games.

@NEStalgia Wow! Yeah, this thread does move fast! I know what you mean about 'social' gaming - the irony is that they can become quite anti-social activities in many ways! ..the only thing that pulled me in to GTAO was the race creator really - I'd played a few shooters that allowed you to design your own deathmatches, but never a racing game - and that alone was enough to keep me hooked for a good while (..almost like a 'Mario Kart Maker' type thing!) ..but some would find truly bizarre ways to enjoy that game - I remember encountering one 'crew' who just enjoyed driving around obeying the traffic signals, speed limits etc and trying their best to never, ever, ever pick up a wanted level! :/ ..whatever floats your boat, I guess! (..with those people, I'm not sure I even want to understand their motivation! Haha!)

'Free' games can be very hit-and-miss though (..or miss-and-miss-and-miss-and-miss-and-miss-and-miss-and-hit-and-miss-and-miss-and-miss-and-miss-and-miss to be a bit more accurate)

..it's often (especially with PS+ in my experience) not all it's cracked up to be!

@Octane. Sorry, but you ARE paying for the infrastructure, including servers and other such gubbins -

https://www.xbox.com/en-GB/live/gold

Give me cloud saves, voice chat and friend messaging, and I'll call it even for $20 a year.

System level is preferred, but if the app could do voice chat for any game, and message any friend... I'd be ok with that. Something, however, tells me that won't be the case

@JaxonH Yeah, that's what I'd be hoping for too - a good selection of free games can only sweeten the deal, but if Nintendo announce that the online service will be more robust as a result (voice chat in any game, better connectivity, internet-reliant features supported for longer etc) that alone would be worth the subscription fee for me

@zitpig Sony doesn't do it, that's for sure. And I know that a lot of Microsoft's games use P2P as well. Forza 7 for example. I certainly wouldn't believe what they are saying, they're the ones selling you something after all. Unless they have provided a list which states which games use dedicated servers and which ones don't. I think you'll be surprised...

NL still haven't posted the Japanese sales charts for this week. I've just sent them a reminder. This online subscription doesn't sound great. There's very few online games, most don't cost Nintendo a penny, charging for old VC games most of us own numerous times, now paying for discounts. Basically, paying for everything that we currently get for free. Oh ya, and that crappy phone app.

I didn't quote SONY and I don't care if you don't believe Microsoft. They are advertising that "fact." Unless you have proof that what they say is inaccurate, we have to give them the shadow of the doubt; ie that you ARE paying for the infrastructure and that the "free" games are indeed gratis.

Anyway arguing over what you get for $20 is pretty stupid. You can't even get a good take-away meal for that! At least you'll have year's worth of online "fun" and perhaps some "free" games and extras too.

Why do you have to give them the shadow of the doubt? It seems fine to doubt them.

And this is also true for MS and Sony.

The publishers and devs have their own infrastructure with servers. There is a reason we sometimes get stories about PS players suddenly finding PC or Xbox players in certain games (i.e rocket league), it is because the servers are not hosted at Sony or MS. If the only thing you are paying for is to connect for online play, you are scammed.

What they are saying is that they are hosting their stuff (i.e voice chat servers) in Azure, nothing more, nothing less.

LOL. Well, I don't have enough evidence to state they are lying myself!

I work in an environment where I have to provide evidence to back up everything. You can presume it's inaccurate, but you can't state it, because a) it's libellous and b) you have nothing more to go on than hearsay, rumours and hunches - none of which will stand up in a court!

And that's the issue. If Ubisoft started charging a mandatory fee of $20 a year to access their games (not talking about online, but just the privilege of playing the games), you could easily argue that $20 isn't a lot and that nobody should be allowed to complain. It's not about the money, it about the principle behind charging for a P2P network. Because as it currently stands, the only thing that changes in September is the mandatory paywall. And it's pointless for Nintendo to suddenly introduce dedicated servers for no apparent reason at all.

You can follow your principles until you die. It doesn't make you right or them wrong.

It's a case of accept it and move on or don't and don't. Sure things are changing, but that's the price of progress. Everything changes. Everything. All the time. Doesn't make everything right or wrong. Accept it or don't. Pay $20 or not. Your choice.

My choice is not to pay - at least until I hear in full what we'll get for our money. I'm not against the charge, but as a pretty much solo gamer, online has very little interest for me. But even so, if what it offers benefits me then I will invest.

@NaviAndMii
PS Plus ?
Ooooh...
That's one of my Restriction for my PS4 when i get it later.
I Forbid any kind of Freebies from Sony.
I Refuse to get any Free Games from Sony.
That's why i will Not make ps plus for my ps4. Just only Normal PSN Account to buy The Sims 4 DLC and Expansion Packs Only.
I will not be "nice" with Sony and my ps4.

But, i will Accept any kind of Freebies from Nintendo, as long they are suitable for me.
I'm willing to spend $20 for Paid Online Service.
My money is Mostly for Nintendo.
Not for Sony.

You're putting quite a lot of words in my mouth. I'm just saying you can only refer to something as 'added value' if a user perceives it as such. I might perceive a few of the 'free' games as added value, but most of them won't appeal to me. That doesn't really matter though, since I wouldn't mind paying 20 bucks on a yearly basis to play an occasional game of Mario Kart or trade some Pokemon in the near future.

There's other stuff which could be included in the new online that appeals to me but not to other people or the other way around, e.g. cloud save or voice chat or whatever...

@ToiletDuck - I never put ANY words in your mouth. I didn't even quote you.

Should we stop with talking about the price till we exactly know what we get for it?

@Anti-Matter Not just that either, the PlayStation Network has gone down 3 times in the last week - even if you're only paying for the online part of the service, it's not much use if it's offline half the time!

It definitely sounds like there is going to be more to the online subscription than what we currently know about.

"Preparing some attractive (contents or programs) for subscription-based online membership. Please wait for the detail announcement later in the year."

Remember originally it was 1 NES game or 1 SNES game with online play per month. You only got to choose one or the other, not both. They also said at the time that those who missed out on that month's free game would then have the opportunity to purchase it, VC-like. The way it was described though made it sound like even subscribers only had access to the game they chose for 1 month although it was never actually confirmed if that was the case. Nintendo was slated at the time for being stingy and rightly so, especially since there was no indication of how much it would all cost. They then came back some time later with much more details of the service and this time made it clear that you will have access to the monthly games for as long as you stay subscribed. With all the details on what a subscription included and the low cost of joining announced at once, most websites covered the news favorably and the reaction from gamers was generally positive. But really this low price just glossed over the fact that SNES games were no longer included and were now something that may be considered in future. To me though that came across as them being even more stingy than the first time. That was a long time ago now though,things will have further changed since then.